2018 AA Club - Week 17

[clarke54321]

In response to the death of Eurydice Dixon, The Sydney Morning Herald's Jenna Price wrote an opinion piece evaluating the current practices used to prevent violence among women. Expressed in the form of a comment, Joe Blow also presents his understanding of the issue.

For Eurydice's sake, we need to do more than go to vigils

Of all the violent deaths of women, the death of Eurydice Dixon, the 22-year-old rising comic, is one we can embrace when we signal our opposition to violence against women. We see it's not her fault. A stranger allegedly killed her and no one could predict that. It could not have been her fault. In the contemporary era, the story of Eurydice Dixon begins with Anita Cobby, the kind and beautiful nurse, also murdered by strangers. Janine Balding. Jill Meagher. Even school teacher Stephanie Scott who knew her murderer only in passing.

To us all, these are senseless deaths, unexpected. And so infrequent they fulfil that strange news criterion of the odd, the unusual.

So we do the small and the manageable to gain control and mastery over this hideous life. We share those photos, we go to vigils. We insist that the police and journalists use the appropriate language.

Well, good, small, manageable. But I challenge you to do more than that now. For every time you tut and tsk at the use of language, or the reliance on policing women's behaviour, do one more thing. Challenge the structures which allow this to happen. Insist your local politician knows how many women are killed each year. Ask why they refuse to fund that most basic of needs, safe shelter; why they refuse to fund the struggle to stop violence against women.

Discuss this as elections loom and not just in the safety of your Facebook feed. Learn more about why it is so hard to change or challenge male power and why you can change it. Understand that Safe Schools did not go far enough - what our children need is not sex education but the kind of education which explains that for a better safer world we need to teach Safe Societies. Start with their parents in prenatal classes and then teach those values in childcare and preschool and in all the schools and institutions. Stop just clicking both your social media feeds and your tongues in easy disapproval.

Put pressure on governments. Put pressure on each other. That is the only thing which will save the lives of women and girls.

Our job now is to put pressure on governments to fund programs for social change. This will not happen just because we want it to. And pressure worked in Victoria. Pressure works. It will only happen if you hold power to account. And until you do, there will be more rapes and more murders, a few in public but thousands more where no one can hear the victims cry.


I think that the continuous message that 'Men' are bad and responsible for all of the ills of the world misses a fundamental point. Men and Women are products of their environment and upbringing and thus, this is a generational issue.

Continuously decrying 'Men' as the problem will only cause 'Men' to stop listening. There is no immediate fix. People like Eurydice's killer and Jill Marks' killer have both a psychological tendency to violence and an upbringing which has not emphasised respect for others.

It has taken more than a generation to allow women to vote, speak out and dress as they please. How is this any different? Expecting change to occur overnight will only build resistance to that change.

-Joe Blow

[MissSmiley]

I'm very sorry this is a last minute post on Sunday especially when Clarke generously put a piece to analyse on Monday. But although the term's wrapping up, I've had bucketloads of school work to do this week, that's why this lateness  Very Sorry!
Thank you in advance if anyone has the time to give me some feedback!

Jenna Price uses an earnest tone to contend that the general public needs to do more than just reacting on the aftermaths of violent deaths of women; that the government needs to embark on strategies to inform about and reduce violence against women. Listing women like “Anita Cobby, Jill Meagher…” who were killed by violent men, Price from the outset itself, seeks to portray violence against women all the more poignant. However, her criticism of the general public trying to “gain control and mastery over this hideous life…[by] sharing photos…[and scrolling through] Facebook feed,” is intended to make the general Australian public feel guilty and criminalised for not taking steps to reduce violence against women, only to superficially believe that these deaths are “odd, unusual” and should only be felt sorry for. To absolve themselves of this guilt, the readership will more likely form an ingroup of responsible citizens who care about the lives of girls and women; ingroup of citizens that are likely to take Price’s earnest imperatives seriously. Pointing out fallacies in current Government programs like the “Safe Schools” program, is necessary for Price to firstly make a comparison between this and her proposed alliterative program “Safe Societies,” and then strengthen this proposal by using highly pleasant, idealistic imagery of a “better safer world” where basic human rights such as “safe shelter” can be practised by women, just like their male counterparts. In turn, women who are likely to be more sympathetic towards Price and who would immediately feel a sense of ominousness in Price’s depiction of an obnoxious future with “more rapes and more murders” would perhaps feel obliged to indeed, “pressur[ise] the government” and improve incentives towards protection of women against violence.
Although Joe Blow agrees that violence against women is indeed an “ill of the world,” he uses a defensive tone to reprimand Price’s approach to convey the seriousness of violence against women; he believes that she is blaming “men” for contributing towards murders of women. In an attempt to achieve gender parity firstly, in claiming that “both men and women are products of their environments,” Blow initiates his stance that Price has oversentimentally portrayed the injustices against women, to the point where males are alienated and as a result, would become “resist[ant]” to the proposals Price has suggested. In turn, males in the general public would perhaps not take Price’s overly dramatised concern seriously, but instead would form an ingroup and raise awareness about men killers’ “psychological tendency to violence” that should be given sympathy for in a society where this “respect” towards mentally ill perpetrators is neglected. Blow strategically ends his speech by pointing out demonstrations for women’s justice such as the “right to vote…to dress as [women] please.” As change did not occur “overnight” in these historical events, doubt is instilled in women’s minds about the efficiency of the implementations of Price’s proposals. As a result, Blow encourages women to expect “change” within reality, unlike perceiving change to be associated with the seemingly quick actions that Price wishes to voice out and reduce violence against females.

[Anonymous]

The recent death of Eurydice Dixon has sparked a heated debate regarding the ways in which the public has responded to the issue of violence among women, as well as the rationality of their approach to preventing the issue. In response, Jenna Price has written a fervent opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘For Eurydice’s Sake, we need to do more than vigils’, which contends that the public needs to take more action to combat violent acts against women. In contrast, Joe Blow has written a pragmatic comment which contends that men should not be held responsible for violence against women, but instead, this form of violence is a generational issue  where both men and women can either be victims or perpetrators.

From the outset, Price alarms the reader by arguing that violence against women is not a novel issue, but rather, one that has been an ongoing detriment to the public on many occasions and is increasingly worsening. Structurally, the portrayal of the deaths of women that have been caused by violence as ‘senseless’ and ‘unexpected’ is placed first to challenge the reader’s view that the deaths of these women can simply be controlled if the victims are more cautious while wandering around in public. This is coupled with the inclusive language which appeals to the reader’s common sense, stating that ‘we see it’s not [Eurydice’s] fault’ that she died, which insinuates that preventing her death is not in her hands. In doing so, the reader is positioned to feel indirectly responsible for her death, as well as are encouraged to take the initiative to address this form of violence more seriously. The public’s refusal to act is further reinforced through Price’s method of listing the victims who have died from violence before Eurydice’s murder, including ‘Anita Cobby, the kind and beautiful nurse’, where ‘kind and beautiful’ have connotations of an innocent woman who did not deserve to be ‘killed by a stranger’. Ultimately, Price appeals to the reader’s empathy while urging them to take more action to prevent more lives from being lost.

Maintaining her assertive tone, Price goes on to argue that although some practices have been taken to spread awareness about the increasing violence against women, many of these approaches have not been effective in combating the issue. In stating that ‘good, small and manageable’ efforts have been taken to ‘gain control’ over the brutality that women face, Price presents herself as someone who is not completely ignorant of the action that has already been taken to resolve the issue of violence against women, thus guiding the reader to view her as someone who is understanding of the public’s awareness of the severity of the issue. Price then employs a first-person register in ‘I challenge you to do more than that…” in order to position the reader to feel as if they are a vital part of making a change. This is followed by a series of command verbs including ‘Insist your local politicians…” or  “Ask why they refuse to find the most basic needs…”, which is intended to encourage the reader to become more active in addressing the issue. In doing so, Price also presents herself as someone who is knowledgeable about the steps that need to be taken to address the issue of violence against women, and encourages the reader to have confidence in her resolution of finding ways beyond social media to spread awareness about the issue.

In response to Price’s opinion piece, Blow adopts a reasoned tone in arguing that addressing the issue of violence against women takes time and the immediate blame should not be placed on men alone. By placing both men and women on an equal footing, Blow establishes his rationality by emphasising that this form of violence is a ‘generational issue’, where no minority are at fault for such violence. Blow’s logic is further endorsed through his use of scientific knowledge, which suggests that ‘Eurydice’s killer and Jill Meagher’s killer have both a psychological tendency to violence and upbringing’, which echoes Price’s proposal to teach children about ‘safe societies in school’ and to teach these values in ‘childcare and preschool…’. While Blow criticises the ‘continuous decrying of men as the problem’, Price stays true to her position as a woman by asserting the need to ‘save the lives of women and girls’. This appeal to the reader’s empathy positions them to regard women and girls as the main victims. Price’s urgent tone is reinforced at the conclusion of her piece, where she highlights the dire consequences of the refusal to take more action towards combating these crimes, including ‘more rapes and more murders’, which instils a sense of fear in readers. In contrast, Blow calms the reader through his composed tone as he refers to historical events including the ‘allowing of women to vote’ which took ‘more than a generation’. Not only does he assure readers that change will come with patience, he ends with a rhetorical question which asks ‘how is this any different?”, further encouraging the reader to seriously consider the gradual steps that must be taken in order to achieve equitable treatment of women, as opposed to the need for immediate action as Price suggests.

In both pieces, Price and BLow acknowledge that violence against women must be addressed. Yet, whilst price urges readers to go beyond the actions already taken to spread awareness about violence against women, Blow postulates that there are many complexities involved in working towards an end to violence against women, and these nuances must be addressed. Both writers establish their rationality through their use of pre-existing knowledge, but both ultimately do so to bolster different views on how the issue of violence against women should be addressed.

[MissSmiley]

The recent death of Eurydice Dixon has sparked a heated debate regarding the ways in which the public has responded to the issue of violence among women, as well as the rationality of their approach to preventing the issue. In response, Jenna Price has written a fervent opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘For Eurydice’s Sake, we need to do more than vigils’, which contends I guess you could say 'fervent opinion piece' but it just sounds weird. And also, rather than the article contending, could you say 'She fervently contends that...' ? that the public needs to take more action to combat violent acts against women. In contrast, Joe Blow has written a pragmatic comment which contends that men should not be held responsible for violence against women, but instead, this form of violence is a generational issue where both men and women can either be victims or perpetrators. Yeah, good outline of Blow's stance

From the outset, Price alarms the reader by arguing that violence against women is not a novel issue, but rather, one that has been an ongoing detriment to the public on many occasions and is increasingly worsening. Structurally, the portrayal of the deaths of women that have been caused by violence as ‘senseless’ and ‘unexpected’ is placed first to challenge the reader’s view that the deaths of these women can simply be controlled if the victims are more cautious while wandering around in public. do you think so? if we take forward this interpretation, it would mean that Price is blaming the victims, which she's not...There's just some negative connotation behind your sentence. This is coupled with Don't think you can say this here, because there's no relationship between your first couple of sentences and now these sentences. the inclusive language which appeals to the reader’s common sense, Rather than this, do want to say 'instils guilt in the reader's mind? I think your reader effect analysis could be more specific stating that ‘we see it’s not [Eurydice’s] fault’ that she died, which insinuates that preventing her death is not in her hands. In doing so, the reader is positioned to feel indirectly responsible for her death, as well as are encouraged to take the initiative to address this form of violence more seriously. Yeah this is good now. Still could focus on guilt though The public’s refusal to act is further reinforced through Price’s method of listing the victims who have died from violence before Eurydice’s murder, including ‘Anita Cobby, the kind and beautiful nurse’, where ‘kind and beautiful’ have connotations of an innocent woman who did not deserve to be ‘killed by a stranger’. Ultimately, Price appeals to the reader’s empathy while urging them to take more action to prevent more lives from being lost.

Maintaining her assertive tone, Price goes on to argue that although some practices have been taken to spread awareness about the increasing violence against women, many of these approaches have not been effective in combating the issue. In stating that ‘good, small and manageable’ efforts have been taken to ‘gain control’ over the brutality that women face, Price presents herself as someone who is not completely ignorant of the action that has already been taken to resolve the issue of violence against women, thus guiding the reader to view her as someone who is understanding of the public’s awareness of the severity of the issue. Price then employs a first-person registerpronoun in ‘I challenge you to do more than that…” in order to position the reader to feel as if they are a vital part of making a change. I don't think her first person I does this, but the second person 'you' does this Just check your cause-consequence sentences.  This is followed by a series of command verbs including ‘Insist your local politicians…” or  “Ask why they refuse to find the most basic needs…”, which is intended to encourage the reader to become more active in addressing the issue. In doing so, Price also presents herself as someone who is knowledgeable about the steps that need to be taken to address the issue of violence against women, and encourages the reader to have confidence in her resolution of finding ways beyond social media to spread awareness about the issue. Yes good! You could also have mentioned how Price is a girl ! So that helps drive across the message even better!

In response to Price’s opinion piece, Blow adopts a reasoned tone in arguing that addressing the issue of violence against women takes time and the immediate blame should not be placed on men alone. By placing both men and women on an equal footing, Blow establishes his rationality by emphasising that this form of violence is a ‘generational issue’, where no minority do you mean the victims? needs to be a bit clearer. are at fault for such violence. Blow’s logic is further endorsed through his use of scientific knowledge No I wouldn't call that scientific knowledge. which suggests that ‘Eurydice’s killer and Jill Meagher’s killer have both a psychological tendency to violence and upbringing’, which echoes Price’s proposal to teach children about ‘safe societies in school’ and to teach these values in ‘childcare and preschool…’. This doesn't make sense. Also she hasn't proposed teaching about 'safe societies.' Rather she's sort of undermining that and saying that the impact of violence against women needs to be taught, rather than just learning and caring about gender-inclusivity like the safe schools project.  While Blow criticises the ‘continuous decrying of men as the problem’, Price stays true to her position as a woman by asserting the need to ‘save the lives of women and girls’. This appeal to the reader’s empathy positions them to regard women and girls as the main victims. Price’s urgent tone is reinforced at the conclusion of her piece, where she highlights the dire consequences of the refusal to take more action towards combating these crimes, including ‘more rapes and more murders’, which instils a sense of fear in readers. In contrast, Blow calms the reader through his composed tone as he refers to historical events including the ‘allowing of women to vote’ which took ‘more than a generation’. Not only does he assure readers that change will come with patience, he ends with a rhetorical question which asks ‘how is this any different?”, further encouraging the reader to seriously consider the gradual steps that must be taken in order to achieve equitable treatment of women, as opposed to the need for immediate action as Price suggests. Yes good!

In both pieces, Price and BLow acknowledge that violence against women must be addressed. Yet, whilst price urges readers to go beyond the actions already taken to spread awareness about violence against women, Blow postulates that there are many complexities involved in working towards an end to violence against women, and these nuances must be addressed what nuances? I reckon just 5 more words to give an e.g. of one of the 'nuances' that you're talking about . Both writers establish their rationality through their use of pre-existing knowledge, but both ultimately do so to bolster different views on how the issue of violence against women should be addressed.

Hello!
The ideas in your topic sentences and your paraphrasing of the arguments is fantastic! Also, you're often analysing the author's style and argument development choices, which is really good!
Just sometimes I think you could be a bit more specific / analyse the intended effect on the reader a bit more, so you're writing will stand out even more!
Also make sure that only the same ideas are linked from one sentence to the next, so it doesn't get contradictory.

But other than that, great work!

[MissSmiley]

not clarke but hope it helps : -)

Hahaha! Not Clarke! 
But thank you so much!!
Some great suggestions in there!
Definitely will take these things on board!

Thank you! 

[Anonymous]

quote author=Anonymous link=topic=179308.msg1047613#msg1047613 date=1530420925]
[/quote]

Damn, beaten by MissSmiley. Attached (as aa feedback 22222) is what I got up to.